Crowd Packs Council Meeting on Miramar Ranch North Development

Ending more than a decade of political and legal wrangling, the San Diego City Council late Tuesday night approved the 1,200-acre Miramar Ranch North development on the hills north of Mirarmar Lake.

The council’s 7-1 vote authorizes extensive community review of plans for the homes closest to the lake, which will be considered by the council this spring. The council retains the power to modify or reject those construction plans under the terms of Tuesday’s vote.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor was the only dissenting vote and Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer wasabsent.

The council also agreed to create a special taxation district to finance of major roads and other public improvements in the area.

The council faced the difficult task of balancing the demands of Scripps Ranch residents for roads, parks, schools, churches and other badly needed public facilities against local activists’ calls to prevent large-scale grading of the picturesque hills north of Lake Miramar.

Nearly 800 people jammed into a 400-seat parish center to learn whether the council would approve the 1,200-acre project.

Failure to approve the “development agreement” under consideration could have cost the city as much as $5.5 million under the September settlement of a lawsuit with the builders, BCED-McMillin. But, simultaneously, the Save Miramar Lake Committee was threatening to launch a second citywide referendum on the project if the developers were allowed to grade major portions of the hills north of the lake and build homes on land, which the group claimed should be left as canyonland.

At issue is the controversial third phase of the development, on which 770 homes are planned.

Councilman Bruce Henderson assured the crowd that the council could approve the “development agreement” Tuesday night and still modify or reject the Phase III plans in April.

“Nothing in our actions tonight will commit us legally or in a practical matter” to approve Phase III when it comes before the council for a vote this spring, he said.

Tuesday’s meeting came less than four months after a Sept. 18 deal--between the builders, Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt and activists who had stalled the project--that appeared to pave the way for a 3,162-home development north of Miramar Lake.

BCED-McMillin agreed to scale back portions of the project located in the lake’s viewshed; build a badly needed east-west highway, Alternate 8A, from Poway to Interstate 15; and construct a Mercy Road interchange to I-15. The public improvements, to be financed by homeowners through a special assessment district, would cost more than $56 million.

Bernhardt brokered the deal, earning a big victory by solving a long-running Scripps Ranch controversy and convincing the Save Miramar Lake Committee to agree to the new terms. In April, 1989, the community group blocked the project as it was originally configured by waging a successful campaign for a citywide referendum on it.

The referendum was never held because the original plans, which called for more intensive development on the hills above the lake, were scrapped in favor of negotiations between the builders and the activists.

The September deal reduced the number of homes on the hills above the lake, hiding many of them out of view of hikers and joggers who retreat to the picturesque shores. It also moved the alignment of proposed Scripps Ranch Boulevard away from the lake, increased the amount of open space in the development and converted a proposed industrial park into a 300-home multifamily residential project.

The builders, however, won a requirement that the city approve the “development agreement” by Tuesday or reimburse BCED-McMillin for more than $2 million it has invested in Alternate 8A. In addition, the city would face a substantial penalty.

A development agreement is a contract between the city and the builder guaranteeing that a specified number of homes will be built each year. The guarantee helps the builder secure financing from lenders, who want assurances that construction projects will come to fruition.

Mayor O’Connor has strongly opposed the project, objecting to the requirements that the city pay penalties if the Tuesday deadline and a second, April deadline aren’t met.

“It’s a great deal for McMillin,” said Paul Downey, the mayor’s spokesman. “It’s a bad deal for the city. The city’s on the hook if we hold them up for any reason, even a valid reason.”

The deal also is endangered by Save Miramar Lake Committee’s threat to mount a second referendum drive. The environmentalists claim that BCED-McMillin has broken several oral promises made when the deal was struck, including submitting plans that call for substantial grading of the hills at the root of the controversy.

“It’s clear from the maps McMillin has submitted up to now that they don’t intend to live up to the representations made last summer in order to get our support for the agreement,” said J. Gary Underwood, chairman of the organization.

Underwood said McMillin plans to carve “80 to 90 feet” off the top of some hills north of the lake, instead of the 20 to 30 feet that were part of the agreement in September. He also claimed that the builder is dramatically expanding a residential portion at the east end of the project, extending it across at least one canyon.

But Steve McGill, executive vice president of McMillin Communities, said the builder is sticking to plans presented to the Scripps Ranch community last summer.

“The point is we showed them a plan. We didn’t promise them a lot of things. We showed them a plan and that’s exactly what we’re doing,” McGill said.